Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Yeah, but when he get's out he'll still be in Russia, so joke's on him.

Typeline wrote:The kid killed a single person with a brick, and he only meant to just really mess him up. He was a pissed off kid. We've all done stupid stuff.

Given we all probably didn't kill anyone.

And that's kind of a big deal.

This kid has destroyed someone's life. That other kid probably would have lived another 53 years. Okay, maybe 43 in Russia, but 4 years is still a pittance. He deserves to lose a lot more than that. A lot more. The person he attacked lost 10 times that. It wasn't his fault. He didn't do this to himself, unlike this brick-murderer.

So what if it's only one person murdered? It's only one person in jail.

But really? If he killed like 5 people I might be concerned.

Um... I hope you're not a judge.
I might be concerned if he murdered 5 people... only murdered 4 though. Let him go. Don't want him to become a criminal in jail...

But if everyone was as up in arms about something that kills 400,000 people a year as this one kid killing this one other kid with a brick we might be a little better off in general.

If someone kills 400,000 people they should be put in jail too.

Typeline wrote:

thedarkside69 wrote:wow glad you guys find this funny... that kid will be out again in four years when he should be rotting in a hole somewhere.

I don't really believe in the incarceration of children. Think about it. He basically only ages physically. Mentally he only learns about crime and how to operate in a prison. Our society bills prisons as a place of reform. But we all know someone put into the prison system is being culled into a permanent prisoner. Knowing how to do nothing else but live and exist in a prison and drenched in crime the prisoner invariable even seeks the prison back out. If he does so knowingly or unknowingly I am not sure.

I laugh and make jokes as a defense mechanism for the sorrow I share for those lost to such a system. As do I laugh at many things I feel great sorrow over.

The fact that this 14 year old boy will lose 4 years of his life to a prison system is even more depressing. Those 4 years are the formative years in which we all develop into the people we will mainly remain, barring a tragic event, for the majority of our lives. He will be a prisoner. Those four years will show him that.

Most slowed post ever....the guy isnt 6 years old...hes ffffiiiiing 14!!! he should be executed. When your 14 everyone knows its not ok to kill someone....give me a break man.

Also to your other post...if he was trying to mess someone up...he would have punhced/kicked him a few times....smashing someone in the head with a break...shows intent to kill....if this was in America...this kid would be locked up for a long long long time.

Orkeosaurus wrote:If someone kills 400,000 people they should be put in jail too.

I said something. I wasn't really referring to a singular person. I was more talking about stuff like drinking, smoking, driving incidents. When a lot of people die it's just a statistic, but when it's one person people can humanize that person more easily. Deindividuation of a group of statistics that has us at it's core really hurts us as a whole.

You can't put driving accidents in jail.

It's a completely different problem from murder.

Yes you can put driving accidents in jail..heard of accidents invloving a person DUI?

Causing something doesn't mean you are something.

A drunk driver is not a car accident. One is a person, the other is an event. I don't really know why I have to explain this...

Orkeosaurus wrote:You can't put driving accidents in jail.

It's a completely different problem from murder.

I'm not saying put driving accidents in jail.

I'm saying if we gave as much attention to how dangerous driving is and how unfocused we are as drivers it would be a better use of our time and energy then bawwwwing over every single murder.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Causing something doesn't mean you are something.

A drunk driver is not a car accident. One is a person, the other is an event. I don't really know why I have to explain this...

wtf are you talking about...who would think you could put an event in jail...im talking about the drunk driver causing a car accident...i dont really know why i have to explain this. Thats like saying you cant put guns in jail...well duh of course you cant....wtf...the people that use them go to jail...just like the drunk drivers that cause the car accidents end up in jail. What are you smoking man?

you cant put car accidents in jail....lol....why would you even type that.

garret wrote:damn this is really going to be a blow to the gaming industry
like they dont have enough problems already

Thats so true , but guess whats going to happen?

The parent of the dead boy will sue the game company ( one with more money )
instead of taking up the responsibility ( or lack of ) proper parenting.

Typeline wrote:I'm saying if we gave as much attention to how dangerous driving is and how unfocused we are as drivers it would be a better use of our time and energy then bawwwwing over every single murder.

There's a difference between murder and car accidents that makes it impossible to simply move "time and energy" between the two. They're entirely different problems. I do agree there's a little too much paranoia going on about "CRIME" a lot of the time, but if you start to ignore crime the issue escalates exponentially. Physical violence becomes the best method of settling disputes, people have to spend as much time guarding their things as working for them, the government becomes undermined by underground gangs, etc. It can't be ignored, it's too far reaching. There's a world of difference between accidental/incidental events and events that were purposefully done. Cancer won't decide to occur more because there's less of a chance of it getting chemo'd.

People bawwwwing over the latest "missing white girl" is annoying, but most of the news is pretty inane anyway. Perhaps individuals would be better off watching themselves on the road then they would watching out for other people, but it's pretty rare the two actually come into conflict. Like I said, very different. You can lock your house at night and wear your sealtbelt.

brad3104 wrote:wtf are you talking about...who would think you could put an event in jail...im talking about the drunk driver causing a car accident...i dont really know why i have to explain this. Thats like saying you cant put guns in jail...well duh of course you cant....wtf...the people that use them go to jail...just like the drunk drivers that cause the car accidents end up in jail. What are you smoking man?

you cant put car accidents in jail....lol....why would you even type that.

Okay... so you agree with me. Cool.

LunaHound wrote:

garret wrote:damn this is really going to be a blow to the gaming industry
like they dont have enough problems already

Thats so true , but guess whats going to happen?

The parent of the dead boy will sue the game company ( one with more money )
instead of taking up the responsibility ( or lack of ) proper parenting.

Gaming industry won't feel this and the parents won't sue, because....

THEY LIVE IN RUSSIA!

Also @Orkeosaurus: Can it are let be hugz tiem now?

Sure. I don't think we're disagreeing by too far of a margin anyways, really.

Oh my Gork, If this would've happened in Germany we'd never hear the end of it. The still talk about how evil games are since the last school shooting. Even Jack Thompson resurfaced and wrote a letter to Obama about it.

Typeline wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

This guy's a psychopath anyway.

He ambushed and killed someone with a brick. What's the prison system going to teach him? How to kill two people with bricks? How to steal someone's money while killing them with a brick? Oh no! He'll end up hardened!

Green Blow Fly wrote:This never actually happened.

G

PanamaG wrote:This is what happens when your gun laws arent as good as Australias you know.

Seriously this kid should be dead.

The kid killed a single person with a brick, and he only meant to just really mess him up. He was a pissed off kid. We've all done stupid stuff.

Given we all probably didn't kill anyone.

But really? If he killed like 5 people I might be concerned. But if everyone was as up in arms about something that kills 400,000 people a year as this one kid killing this one other kid with a brick we might be a little better off in general.

If this really happened and I was the judge I would issue the death sentence.

G

What would killing a fourteen year old kid accomplish? What he did was awful sure enough, but a fourteen year old does not have the decision making skills of an adult. He made an awful decision with terrible consequences and certainly he should be punished, but kill him? A dead kid is a dead kid. Does it really matter if a kid is lethally injected by the state or if his head is crushed with a brick? A fourteen year old has their whole life ahead of them. The kid should be given the opportunity to make right. He should just have to go through years on involuntary therapy in a youth detention center first.

Well its kinda simple...when there are severe consequences for things...people tend not to commit the crime as much. When the consequence is minimal...people dont give a gak...and do whatever they want. If the violation for going over the speed limit by 10 mph was having your license suspended for 3 months instead of some stupid minimal amount of money....I assure you alot less people would be driving like idiots. If this kid walks away with that 4 year sentence it says he will get...he will likely do simliar things again....and when people see a 4 year sentence for murder...what do they have to be scared of?


Why should this kid be allowed to live when he himself took a life? Sentence him to death...and prevent all the future crimes he will commit. This will also let people know there are actually consequences for killing someone....

brad3104 wrote:Well its kinda simple...when there are severe consequences for things...people tend not to commit the crime as much. When the consequence is minimal...people dont give a gak...and do whatever they want. If the violation for going over the speed limit by 10 mph was having your license suspended for 3 months instead of some stupid minimal amount of money....I assure you alot less people would be driving like idiots. If this kid walks away with that 4 year sentence it says he will get...he will likely do simliar things again....and when people see a 4 year sentence for murder...what do they have to be scared of?

Except every study ever done on the subject says otherwise. The death penalty has no impact whatsoever on murder rates. I hesitate to call a death over a video game a crime of passion, but it is quite clear that the kid was not thinking about the consequences of his actions. Remember, this kid should have known that at the least he was going to go to jail for his actions... jail in Russia.

Why should this kid be allowed to live when he himself took a life? Sentence him to death...and prevent all the future crimes he will commit. This will also let people know there are actually consequences for killing someone....

So you are advocating vengeance? Also, should we kill every rapist because they may once again rape? How about cut the hands off thieves?

huh? vengeance? the kid killed a human being...in the united states...when people kill people...alot of times they get the death penailty...or like 50 years in jail....what are you talking about? the punishment should fit the crime...who said anything about cutting hands off thieves....

Give me a link that shows me harsher consequences=the same amount of crime as joke consequences....that doesnt even make sense.

Bottom of page threehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

According to a survey of the former and present presidents of
the country's top academic criminological societies, 84% of
these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty
acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Akers, 1996)

Consistent with previous years, the 2006 FBI Uniform Crime
Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate.
The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The
Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had
the lowest murder rate.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/law-enforcement-views-deterrence#lawenforcement

According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of all executions (90% in 2000).

A survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association showed that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect. (M. Radelet and R. Akers, Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts, 1995)

I'm arguing the death penalty only as I have no idea what "harsh consequences" or "joke consequences" consist of.

BloodofOrks wrote:What would killing a fourteen year old kid accomplish? What he did was awful sure enough, but a fourteen year old does not have the decision making skills of an adult. He made an awful decision with terrible consequences and certainly he should be punished, but kill him? A dead kid is a dead kid. Does it really matter if a kid is lethally injected by the state or if his head is crushed with a brick? A fourteen year old has their whole life ahead of them. The kid should be given the opportunity to make right. He should just have to go through years on involuntary therapy in a youth detention center first.

What would it accomplish? It would accomplish wiping his defected gene pool that isnt capable of figuring out killing another life is bad.

So revenge. You think the justice system should promote revenge as a method of dealing with criminals. You know, rather then employing methods which actually reduce crime. Fun fact: the states with the highest number of executions are also the states with the highest murder rates. And since killing prisoners costs more then life imprisonment due to massive legal fees created by capital cases their exists no reason to have a death penalty other then revenge. If you find justice to be so pitiful a concept that it can be exchanged for vengeance then so be it. Just don't pretend it's justice you're advocating.

Obama plays Counter-Strike. I have a picture of him in his rage after being pwn3d by nubs right here.

BloodofOrks wrote:So revenge. You think the justice system should promote revenge as a method of dealing with criminals. You know, rather then employing methods which actually reduce crime. Fun fact: the states with the highest number of executions are also the states with the highest murder rates. And since killing prisoners costs more then life imprisonment due to massive legal fees created by capital cases their exists no reason to have a death penalty other then revenge. If you find justice to be so pitiful a concept that it can be exchanged for vengeance then so be it. Just don't pretend it's justice you're advocating.

First of all...your facts are only pertainig to the death penality...obviously if someone is going to kill someone else...they are crazy and dont care what the punishment is. And 2nd...who is talking about revenge? Dude the death penality is a punishment....You kill someone...sometimes you get the death penaility and get killed yourself. how is this revenge? Revenge is if someone kills your mom...and you go kill that person. I think your getting punishment and revenge mixed up.

LunaHound wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:What would killing a fourteen year old kid accomplish? What he did was awful sure enough, but a fourteen year old does not have the decision making skills of an adult. He made an awful decision with terrible consequences and certainly he should be punished, but kill him? A dead kid is a dead kid. Does it really matter if a kid is lethally injected by the state or if his head is crushed with a brick? A fourteen year old has their whole life ahead of them. The kid should be given the opportunity to make right. He should just have to go through years on involuntary therapy in a youth detention center first.

What would it accomplish? It would accomplish wiping his defected gene pool that isnt capable of figuring out killing another life is bad.

QFT this is exactly what should happen. This kid bashed someones head in with a brick. Punishment should be death.

"Revenge lies with the magistrate."

Punishment is revenge, it is often better however that it be dealt with by someone who does not have such an emotional interest so it can be done fairly.

As for the kid, yes, he should be killed. He unlawfully took the life of another human being and thus should suffer a punishment fitting the severity of that crime. He beet another kids head in with a brick. For no other reason than that kid beat him in Counterstrike? What would that child do his girlfriend cheated on him? Kill her and the boy she cheated with? He and society, are better off without him.

And since killing prisoners costs more then life imprisonment due to massive legal fees created by capital cases their exists no reason to have a death penalty

That is a failing of the legal system, it should be made more efficient to process and kill death row inmates. There is no reason why it should cost more to kill a person than it is to keep said person until they die of old age. At the very least a bullet from a firing squad only costs 78 cents, and a lethal injection shouldn't cost more than a couple thousand dollars.

I like everything you said. But i feel punishment and revenge are two different things. I see revenge as something more on a personal level, a way to get back at someone simply for reasons that may not be justified. I see punishment as a way bring justice and show that there are consequence. Punishment has a purpose.

And like you said...a bullet is less than a dollar....why are there so many people on death row...and how killing somone costs more than caring for them for the rest of their lives baffles me.

Personal revenge has evolved in humanity with a purpose; it is a punishment. When there's no governing body, revenge acts a deterrent for causing harm to someone else.

That's why revenge exists. People will go after someone who has harmed them even when it's not necessarily the most beneficial thing for them personally. Because society, as we know it, does not function without some form of punishment.

That doesn't mean personal revenge should take the place of institutional justice, of course. Institutional justice helps to create an objective standard, it helps to make sure that perceived wrongs actually have caused harm, and it tries to make sure people are able to be punished despite their power. (It's not perfect at any of these things, of course, but it's better than individual revenge.)